Gillibrand: Hillary Should Run In 2016

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Hillary Clinton's protegee and replacement in the Senate, says she'll ask the Secretary of State to run for President in 2016. [...] "I'm going to be one of the first to ask Hillary to run in 2016," Gillibrand told BuzzFeed, saying she "certainly hope[s]" Clinton will run for president.

"I think she would be incredibly well-poised to be our next Democratic president," Gillibrand said. "I think she's extremely well prepared. I think her experience as Secretary of State has not only elevated her stature and experience, but she's proven she's someone who can get things done and I think she'd be an outstanding candidate."

Also this: "Gillibrand's words also a rebuke to her own governor, Andrew Cuomo, who also appears to be positioning himself for a future White House run." STOP Cuomo!!!

Has direct ties to Hillary Clinton, having helped raise money for Clinton's 2000 Senate bid and later earning Clinton's endorsement when Gillibrand ran for office in 2006. New York's other Senator, Charles Schumer, reportedly was a staunch advocate for Gillibrand to succeed Clinton in the U.S. Senate.

So, you wanna fight about this too?

The broader point is that Gillibrand and Hillary have had "direct" ties for a awhile now.

Hillary Clinton is pretty much the complete package - she's whip-smart, soaks up information like a sponge, is probably the first one on the job in the morning and the last one to go home, has great people skills, knows how things work, how to get things done, doesn't shy away from contentious issues, is battle-tested, probably learned a lot of important lessons in 2008 - but, where is she on the issues? Will she just pick up the Obama mantle - which I, at least, don't care for - or will she be a different kind of Democrat? And will she be comfortable explaining on the campaign trail what she would do differently than her Democratic predecessor? Will her good-soldier loyalties allow her to push back against that - will the party pooh-bahs allow her to do it? Or will they cull out of the herd someone more amenable to running in the Obama mode?

So, on the entire political landscape, is she really it? I really don't want her to be the Brett Favre of presidential politics.

Cuomo's been mentioned and there have been rumors about Martin O'Malley - my state's governor - but he is in the process of wanting to raise about every tax there is to close a big budget gap, and that could come back to bite him. He might make a good VP, though. A Catholic, he was the one who pushed the same-sex marriage bill to victory here, but...Maryland is getting a new bishop to replace now-Cardinal O'Brien, and he is apparently a hard-liner who has vowed to carry on the fight for religious liberty on all fronts on which he deems it's being threatened, and how O'Malley responds will be interesting. O'Malley has a miserable track record on commutation of prison sentences and clemency - as in, he just has turned a blind eye to recommendations of the clemency board - and hasn't done enough to get rid of the death penalty.

I guess we'll see if the rumors are true, and how the rest of his term as governor plays out.

I don't think my preferred candidate actually exists within the Democratic Party, at least as the Democratic Party seems to be positione. And I'm not sure how inclined any Democratic candidate will be to roll back what will, by 2016, be 16 years' worth of privacy and other rights erosion and massive accretion of executive power, 8 years of which, it looks like, will have been under Democratic auspices. And 16 years of allowing Wall Street and the banks to write their own tickets, much to the detriment of the country and the economy. And 16 years of deficit hysteria.

That's the problem we're looking at, you know - 8 years of a Democratic administration that has co-opted and embraced a lot of Republican policy.

quality, but when loyalty to party trumps loyalty to the people one purports to want to represent, or to an agenda that is being marginalized by one that is unrecognizable as representative of one's beliefs, it ain't so great.

Under the right circumstances, loyalty and taking-one-for-the-team serves the greater good; but while "the greater good" in this case was deemed to be the defeat of McCain/Palin, I'm not so sure the "good" of electing Barack Obama was significantly "greater" to ahve made it worthwhile in the long run.

So, what should she have done? Maybe not going as quietly into the night as she did, not shortcutting the nomination process, not becoming as vocal a cheerleader for someone whose views she clearly did not share - and asking us to make that pivot with her. Maybe resisting the wholesale changes to long-standing Democratic ideals that were ushered in when a not-so-Democratic Democrat was being fitted for the crown of heir apparent to the party.

Irks me that one's loyalty to party could be maintained through such radical changes to that party - because it's really not the same party it used to be. Why would loyalty to something that doesn't reflect one's views be a good thing?

She's smart enough to know what she could have done, but, like many good politicians, she made the choice that was best for her political fortunes - she got a Cabinet position out of it - but the ripple effect of that hasn't translated to being best for the collective fortune and well-being of a lot of Americans.

I believe she backed out of bringing the contest to the floor of the Dem Convention because she knew it would not work, her nationwide reputation as a spoiler would have been cemented in stone, etc. Not work - why you say? Because the Dems showed at the Rules & By-Laws committee meeting that they were willing to violate their own rules to ensure Obama's nomination. Hillary would not have recovered from the media blasting she would have received. She is now a media darling; they believe she can do no wrong. Even Tweety has become an unabashed fan. Yes, she is now well positioned, I believe, to grab the nomination in 2016, and she would have the press behind her. But had she opposed Obama at the Convention, the media would never have allowed her to recover. I don't think she did what she did to get the SoS nomination -- as I understand it, that was a complete surprise.

Hillary's media darling status would last 15 seconds past her even breathing any interest in a 2016 run.

I don't think she did what she did specifically to get that Cabinet position, but it ended up coming her way because she played the game their way - and because it served Obama to have her off the domestic affairs stage where her powerful and increasingly populist voice would not have meshed well with his conservative one.

that Hillary's media darling status would evaporate in record speed if she indicated a candidacy for 2016. The media, some republicans and some democrats have been effusive in their praise for her as SOS solely because it is "safe" for them to do that because she is in a well defined box as far as they're concerned (notwithstanding that she deserves the praise).

The second she poses an actual threat to them, they will dust off the bogey man version of Hillary with a quickness.

I disagree with you here:

where her powerful and increasingly populist voice would not have meshed well with his conservative one

.

Hillary began to campaign as a populist towards the end, but IMO would have governed as a pragmatist. There is no evidence to the contrary given what many of her policy positions were.

would have trended more toward pragmatism, but I don't think, at that point, Obama felt he could risk her being out there as a private citizen, with millions of avid supporters whom he wouldn't stand a chance of winning over if he didn't reach out and fold her into his administration.

I bet if you asked people then where her strengths could best be utilized within the administration, not that many would have chosen the State Department and matters of foreign policy. I suspect that most people saw her strengths as being on the domestic front - on health care and women's rights and education, nutrition, and so on - I know I did. Do you doubt she would have been miles and miles better than Kathleen Sebelius at HHS?

In my opinion, he offered her State because he didn't want her around to remind people what her domestic agenda had been, because it wasn't going to be his agenda. And she's been good at carrying out Obama's foreign policy agenda because, sadly, I think they have much more of a meeting of the minds on that front.

I don't doubt that Hillary has a role to play, but I truly don't see her taking on what would probably be an even more brutal and bruising campaign that 2008, because after all her playing nice with the powers that be, going out of her way to help the party, I think the power structure will thank her kindly for her help, and throw their support to a centrist/moderate/conservative man who can carry on in the Obama tradition, and won't threaten their own hold on party power.

I think she would be well received by the party, the public and the media. She has shown she can garner large numbers of votes; her national popularity is in the 70% range; and my gut tells me a lot of people now recognize we need competence and strength of the type Hillary exhibits in our leadership. Do I agree with all of her positions -- to the extent I know them? No. Do I think she has sensibilities that would urge her pragmatic bent in the direction of giving relief to the average person, yes. Just prior to the election of 2008, she came out in favor of a program, similar to one under FDR, where homeowners were given relief. I think on economic policy, she leans far more toward helping the average American, reducing poverty and gains that are shared by all classes.
I guess all remains to be seen if she's even interested in running. After all, anything can happen between now and 2016.

about 53% (and, in some key states, an even larger percentage) of the voters are women.

While I share your concern and while I was a strong Hillary supporter--with work & $$--in the 2008 primary, it is fair to say that a lot of the subterranean maneuvering within the structure in 2008 & the push to end the primary (see, as an example, today's Repub push) is a fairly typical power-play whenever there is a long primary. Even tho I had no difficulty focusing political allegiance on our then-candidate & now-President Obama following the conclusion of that primary, one aspect of the who-supported-whom among the Dem leadership was fascinating...i.e., recall that Nancy Pelosi pushed hard to close down the primary about the time of the Pennsylvania primary (which Hillary won.) At the time, I thought that gambit was something-other-than-fascinating (and, I'll probably regret having mentioned it here.)

Point of above paragraph: Of course, there was substantial misogyny demonstrated throughout the 2008 season...and, as we have seen since throughout the land, there is a strong odor of racism that many of us see as apparent during Obama's first term. Also: The push by Democratic leadership cut a couple of different ways--in addition to the Pelosi move, we also witnessed the Kennedy push...etc. etc. When all is said & done about which person played what role in the Democratic leadership at the time, my latest thinking is that the real drive had to do with the strength of the Executive vis-a-vis the strength of the Congress--the old assimilation of power (and was that power to emanate from a strong legislative branch or from the executive branch) or the locus of power (was it to reside with the Kennedys, Carters, or Clintons.)

Whatever was the real animator will make very good reading from a historical perspective.

Oh...After what I hope will be a successful two-term President Obama, I would welcome a 2016 Hillary Clinton run & the opportunity to work in that undoubtedly successful campaign.

just how it all developed while I'm still cogent enough to follow the story. I'd particularly like to know what the deal was with Howard Dean, why he behaved the way he did, and then why he got instantly ditched by the Obama people.

Everybody in the commentariat is so fascinated with the Halperin/Heilemann "Game Change" about the McCain campaign, but the really fascinating behind-the-scenes drama, IMO, is what happened on the Dem. side, and we have close to zero actual information about that.

And FWIW, I'd bet money that Pelosi has been smacking herself upside the head for having maneuvered and pushed for Obama over Hillary.

All is anecdote & personal deduction from an array of differing "facts.". Would that it were plain math...but, at this date, the mathematical and/or clearly convincing data as to what precisely happened does not appear to be available to anyone. At least, no one seems to have presented "data.". But then, most "history" relies on loads of anecdote, conventional thinking, and whatnot when "politics" is involved...else why would we see so many disputed versions of power-positioning. Cut me a break :) hmmm.

maybe not in 2016, but sooner than we may expect, i think we will have the first woman president

Hillary Clinton's 2008 run made the prospect of a woman president viable at last, just as Barack Obama's election has made the prospect of future black presidents viable

it will not surprise me, however, if the first woman president is a Republican - i suspect that men in the GOP are capable, as men in the Democratic Party may not be, of appearing to take a time out from the War on Women to advance their overall political agenda

but we've seen that on the left as well - to take just one example, & not even a particularly recent one, remember how Camille Paglia became practically a pin-up for certain "progressive"/left-libertarian antifeminist men?

the GOP is going if they were to nominate a woman for President they are going to have to completely have a demographic colonoscopy. You saw the way they treated Bachmann didn't you? It was don't let the door hit you on the way out.

that "the men problem" has been or will be fixed, but there are lots of women who vote

& now women have seen, thanks to Hillary Clinton, that a woman presidential candidate can be taken seriously by the male establishment

this is not to say Hillary wasn't reviled in certain quarters of that establishment, but it was often precisely because she was a very serious candidate

remember, Hillary was polling extremely well among black voters in South Carolina until they saw Barack Obama win the Iowa caucuses - that's when they started to believe, in a big way, that a black man could become the Democratic presidential nominee - & then Obama's big win in South Carolina convinced black voters elsewhere, who had been very guarded if not outright skeptical about his chances

so we'll see how soon U.S. voters are ready for strides against sexism to equal those that the electorate appears to have made against racism

that earlier support from women voters could make a difference, compared to possible early cynicism about the potential of her candidacy in 2008. To that I would add -- entirely anecdotally on my part! -- that I witnessed younger women voters, initially doubtful that sexism and misogyny exist, get a wake-up call in 2008 that could bring them aboard sooner. That is, if they vote in good numbers again; I also saw many become disgusted with politics, because of the sexism and misogyny (and others discouraged since, because of their disappointment after their "hope" for "change" that hasn't happened).

And a good point that, without an African American opponent to woo that bloc of voters, they could add numbers for Clinton -- although they won't again vote in the numbers that they did in 2008.

How can she change her cankles? I mean, she covered 'em up with the pantsuits, but the the boyz didn't like that, either. C'mon; you know. It's not really about her anatomy; it's about their boy parts. It's not really about her brain, because she's smarter than almost any of them; it's about their boy parts speaking instead of their brains. Etc.

So, again, let's at least agree that -- to use the parallel from race studies, which reminds us that "the race problem" really is "a white problem" -- she's fine, she's brainy, she was ready before, she will have even more experience than before . . . but none of that mattered. It was "the men problem," and have they fixed it?

actually I don't think she should change herself only that she might want to run her campaign differently. After rereading what I wrote, I realize that it did not come off the way. I mean learn something about how to circumvent the guys.

And the next time someone starts talking about "cankles" and I'm in their presence, I might just risk breaking a hand across their face.

I happen to think if she has enough people on the ground which she had ton last time and quite a following that she can overcome all that crap.

That being said I don't expect the OFB club to very welcoming but since Obama hasn't been anything near as glorious as they claimed he would be, I'm going to tell them just to STFU if they say one stinking word.

as her campaign staff disserved her -- although she let them do so; she will not allow that again.

We also agree, though, that from the top of the party on down, we have seen no signs of the guys getting it. So the party still has a "men problem," and I would bet that at best, they may be ostensibly better behaved in 2016 -- but just will become more subtle in undercutting her.

The one "hope" for "change" is that Teddy Kennedy, bless his big heart except about Clintons, is gone. I don't think that there's another of his power with the public as well as behind the scenes who could do again what he did in 2008 -- except for Obama. So as long as she consults her husband and her minister on the important decisions, he'll be better this time?

there's also the "Obama" factor. Say what you will but he was a very popular opponent for her to run against. I don't see anyone coming up the pipeline like that. It's not the people in charge who have changed, it's the competition.

I think a lot of the people who supported Obama in the primary in '08 would support Hillary in '16. Maybe not the loud dudes with the loud microphones, but a significant portion of the voters. Yes, some of that is anecdotal (I'm talking about me, and btd, and the members of my family who didn't support Hillary in '08), but I think it's a fair assesment. I also think there are a lot of people who didn't support her early in the primaries, but did more and more as it went on. How many here were Edwards voter? Sure she will have competition again, but I think she's won over the most important sceptics - the voters.

begins to persuade me -- until I remember that the powers-that-be in the party were able to create the Obama momentum from nowhere, so they could do so again.

Of course, they may not be able to find such a political creature from such a powerful Dem dominion (i.e., Chicago) to create that level of craziness again. But I bet that the Dems could find some guy able to derail Clinton sufficiently, with the aid of another of their whisper campaigns.

there is always the glorious possibility that neither of these folks (Biden or Hillary) will be in the race of 2016 - a race that so many are looking forward to, I suspect, because the race of 2012 is so dreary. Both are rather moth-eaten and will be even more so by 2016.

Bill Clinton came out of nowhere.
Jimmy "I"ll never lie to you" Carter came out of nowhere.
Obama came out of nowhere.
(He is still nowhere, but I digress.)

The folks that decide these matters for us may once again decide to bring in another charismatic personality to dazzle us and pick our pockets.

"decide these matters for us?". Recognizing that we don't usually align on political theory & reality, nonetheless, I'm intrigued by the identity of these all-powerful "folks.". The infamous "they.?". A friend of mine says that she has always wondered about what-she-calls The House of They.

you noticed that we are given a choice of candidates from which to choose? Haven't you noticed that are always big big bucks behind them - usually coming from the same sources?

The "they" to whom I refer are the very rich. And giant corporations. Often multi-national corporations. They do, I am sorry to say, have a preponderance of power in deciding the candidates from which we have to choose.

I, for one, feel that I am being given the choice between two right-wingers. Romney or Obama. There is no opposition to Obama from the democratic party. The challengers to Romney are also right-wing ideologues. We are left to choose between them.

The media, financed entirely by these same corporations, routinely ignore candidates that they consider to be "minor". In "debates"', the "moderators" give inordinate amounts of time to those they consider to be "front-runners". It is a travesty. A violation of democracy. A privately financed circus - presenting us with a choice between candidates that their sponsors tell us are "viable"'.

Christine, you may feel that you are living in a democracy.
But I, I regret to say, don't.

Biden and Clinton are both pols. And, Biden will have been (in all likelihood) vice president for eight years and the desire to be president will be great--and he does not lack in self-esteem. And, Biden seems to have gained confidence with some of his advice on Afghanistan strategy. The nice words in 2008 may have been made at a time when Biden and Clinton were not in real competition for the vice presidential nod. And, of course, they were both in the 2008 Democratic primaries. It is possible that Gillibrand may have not only Cuomo, but Biden, in mind.

You have a point. But I don't see Hillary standing down for Biden either. Not if she still has any ambition. I don't care how much of a team player you are, if you want to be president, you don't stand aside for a man with zero public appeal.

He's not Al Gore, a consensus pick. It's clear that Obama was trying to go the Cheney route, have an old guy that people wouldn't try and elevate. Now Biden may go for it anyway, but we're a few years removed now from anyone assuming the VP is the inevitable candidate. I think if Biden runs he would (and should) have competition - and not just from Hillary.

Maybe if everyone else stood aside for Biden Hillary would to. But I don't see that happening at all, I see it as being fairly open, even if Obama wins again. You think she will stand aside if Cuomo doesn't? I sure don't. You think Cuomo will step aside for Biden? Me neither. All this being under the assumption that she still wants it.

I like Gillibrand. But there's a reason that Obama is the first elected Senator in over 40 years (and 2008, by a fluke, was going to have and elected Senator, no matter what). Senators (and House members) give long-winded speeches. They pontificate, obfuscate, and they (supposedly) collaborate. They do not lead. They can sit back and be "one of the group". They generally are not held accountable for their actions and votes,a s 98% of them are re-elected, election after election. They do not have make tough calls, except for when it comes to their own re-election chances. They do not have to formulate a budget. In short, they are not executives.

she has 60 years of exeprience. And she has both challenged herself & stretched her capabilities during those years all the while displaying great intellect and political courage defending consumers against the greatest tidal wave of Wall Street finance & power in history.

But if you want someone who has been hip deep in the MIC, Wall Street, inside the beltway mutual admiration society, who has shown their mettle & seriousness by supporting the indiscriminate bombing of people not like us someplace else, well that's a different type of experience. The type I for one can do without.

seems to love Cuomo..."getting things done" in the cesspool we call Albany.

Whether those things getting done are good or bad, it is a mixed bag. Gay marriage, good. Paving the way for real casinos in NY State, good. Drug policy bad...very bad. Pension reform he's playing favorites. Definitely not having his State AG police Wall St. effectively.

about where Obama is. Like Obama, standing next to Joe Leiberman at about a hundred miles from Bernie Sanders. Maybe a bit more hawkish than Obama but the Prez appears to view it as a contest he can win.

to get too far afield speculating too many elections ahead when the outcome of the one right around the corner is so much in doubt.

That said, I'm pessimistic that HRC will run again despite the encoyragement from Gillibrand and others, but if she did I'd like to believe she will have rethought some of her tough FP attitudes, especially about sending American troops into hostile Muslim countries to fight terrorism and re reflexively backing Israel, assuming Israel will still exist in 2016.

As for Biden he will be too old and shopworn by then, not a major obstacle either for Hillary or even Gillibrand herself whom I regard highly. Jill Biden perhaps would be a tough opponent. Not Joe.

much as i would love to see secty. of state clinton be the democrat party's standard bearer in 2016, i am also a brutal realist. 2008 was her best chance, when all the planets were aligned in her favor. such will not be the case in 2016. she'll be 8 years older, as will pres. clinton, the rightwingnut shriekfest will have it's blades even more honed than before and, most likely, she'll be a grandma, wanting to spend time with the grand babies, and take a well deserved respite from public life.

frankly, i would also be concerned about her health, both from the natural effects of age, and the very high probability that some rightwingnut loony tune will attempt to assassinate her, urged on by such as limbaugh, beck, savage, et al.

the democrats need to be grooming a younger woman for that breakthrough role, starting several years ago. perhaps sen. gillibrand herself, having had the advantage of secty. clinton as a mentor (mentoress?).